"Breen (See C 28847 fo) highlights the barriers that exist between establishing a risk for serious or fatal road injuries and the willingness of those in authority to assist the investigation or ultimately implement change. Furthermore, acquiring good data on which to establish risk is hampered by a system that is biased in favour of the survivors of crashes, a police force that has little commitment to establishing the facts or releasing the results of their investigations to the relatives of the deceased, and a coroners' court that lacks the determination or authority to question the validity of the police accident report. Many readers of the BMJ may be unaware of the haphazard way in which data are collected and the poor application of scientific principles to this area of investigation. Undue credibility is given to the statements of survivors, who know that silent (dead) witnesses cannot testify. In the case of fatal road crashes, we do not want to say that survivors are guilty until proved innocent, rather that survivors should establish their lack of culpability. This sounds like a semantic quibble, but until we use technology to acquire crash data from the vehicles involved, rather than from their drivers, we will continue to accept circumstantial and heavily biased statements that exonerate those who may have perpetuated these violent acts. Given that cheap mobile phones can take and transmit instant images, surely it is not beyond technological expertise to introduce a black box to monitor a vehicle's performance and ultimately provide the evidence to support or refute culpability in the event of a crash?" (Author/publisher)
Abstract